YOUR Sermon on Isaiah 64. 6. preached at the 3 d. Parish in Brain­tree the 25 th. of last December, and since publish'd to the World under the Patronage of five worthy Divines, has put me upon writing the fol­lowing Letter, which I venture abroad without taking the Trouble to ride after Attestators; being fully perswaded of the Truth of what a venerable Father in these Churches observed to you, when sollicited to usher your Performance into the World with a recommendatory Preface, That it will carry it's own Force with it. And I trust you will not think it impertinent in me to undertake the Office of a Remarker on your Elaborate, Or­thodox, [Page 6] well attested Preachment, since 'tis so ex­presly levelled against a late printed Discourse of mine on the same Text, and delivered as near my Parish as perhaps you could readily find a Pulpit open for you.

WHAT your design was in favouring Brain­tree with this Specimen of the good old Calvinistical Way of Preaching, (tho', as I shall shew in the Sequel, not altogether so Calvinistical as perhaps you imagined) your design in it, I say, I pretend not to determine, having not as yet arrived to the Gift of Discerning Spirits. I charitably hope it was well meant, to confirm that good People to whom it was preach'd, in Soul humbling and Christ exalting Doctrines. But since you yourself ac­knowledge there is a great deal of Wickedness cleaving to the best performances of the very best Men on Earth, you will forgive me if I should say 'tis not impossible that there might be some little Design in the Time of it springing from the old and not from the new Man in you, to make an impression on my People to the disadvan­tage of their unworthy Pastor. And if there was, (which I am so far from determining, that I only suppose it possible) it will be but a friendly Office in me to inform you what success your Labours have met with.

AND truly, (Mr. Porter,) I rejoice that I can tell you—Neither the Force of your reasoning, nor the Fervency of your Brother Eaton's Prayers; nor yet (I would further add if I tho't my Bold­ness could hope for Pardon;) the Character and [Page 7] Influence which your Attestators have this Way: Neither of these, I say, has as yet procured my Dismission. But notwithstanding all you have said, (or I believe can say,) notwithstanding the assiduous Endeavours of several warm Gentlemen to sow Discord among Brethren, which the Scrip­ture says is an Abomination to the Lord: We have as yet a pretty considerable Degree of what we call Christian Love and Union amongst us. You and some others perhaps will give it no better a Name than that of cursed Peace; which dreadful Curse these Churches have of late years bid fair to be delivered from.

I acknowledge I should not have the greatest Opinion of the Union that at present subsists a­mongst us, and which this little Flock commit­ted to my Care (to their eternal Honour be it spoken) have been so remarkable for all along these divided distracted Times, had we any better Reason than the rash Censures of others, to con­clude it was founded only in Ignorance and Car­nal Security.

BUT if we are as ignorant, blind and stupid a People as some are pleased to represent us, (who perhaps would be full as well employed in mend­ing themselves as in speaking Evil of their Neigh­bours) yet I desire to bless God, we have this hopeful symptom still left upon us, that we are desirous to know the Truth. And not only so, but 'tis the Disposition of my Charge to seek for it in the holy Scriptures without any slavish at­tachment to humane Schemes.

[Page 8]INDEED it must be acknowledged with all Gratitude, that there has of late Years been a re­markable Out-pouring of the good old Berean Spirit; and the Perils, that in Times of Ignorance and implicit believing have attended Freedom and Plainness of Speech (which is an essential Branch of that Holiness that becomes God's House for­ever) are very considerably abated.

FIRMLY believing this, and that no Truth can ever suffer by Examination, I venture ( Dear Sir) to Oppose so mighty, so well attested an Author. And what I have to say to yourself I shall digest into the following order.

1st. I will show how far in fact you Oppose me in your Sermon, whatever you aimed to do in the Time of preaching and publishing it.

2ly. I will particularly consider the several Ar­guments you use to Support this your Opposition, and point out to you the weakness and insufficien­cy of them to this Purpose.

3ly. I will show that so far as you have any Controversy with me, you equally oppose Calvin himself. Upon the Truth of which, you will al­low me the Liberty to expostulate a little with yourself, and Rev. Attestators, as to the Cry you have raised from the supposed Abuse of this Text, about the Growth of Arminiasm.

1st. I am to show how far in Fact you oppose me in your Sermon, &c.—And here, One would [Page 9] be apt to think by your running Title, and by the doleful (tho' I hope groundless) Cry you make about Religion's dying with the Fathers for want of proper Persons to supply their Places, as well as innumerable other broad Hints in your Sermon, that it was the Bible itself that was struck at by some unsound and unserious; by some bold, grace­less young Heretick. But upon comparing Notes, I believe it will be found that you have in fact no Controversy with me, only as to the Sense and Design of One single Passage in this Book: And that is those Words, in Isaiah 64. 6.— All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags.—I endeavour to shew that the Prophet is not speaking of the Vir­tues of real good Men, and branding true Righte­ousness with the odious Character of filthy Rags; but only describing and lamenting the general want of it. Mr. Porter says nay; This is not the Sense and Design of the Prophet in the Passage under Consideration, but that the Text is rack'd, and a Sense extorted from it that it was never wil­ing to speak; that it intends not the Hypocritical Performances of wicked Men, but the best Virtues of the best Men, of which filthy Rags is a very fit Resemblance.

THIS I take to be the true state of the Point in Dispute. And consequently all your after-Dis­course, every Thing you have advanced relating to some other controverted Points in Divinity which you take occasion to speak of in the prosecution of this Subject, I have at present nothing to do with, nor could you from any Thing delivered in my Sermon with the least Colour of reason pretend to [Page 10] level your spiritual Artillery against me. If you aimed at me, in that Fire of Zeal about substituting our personal, in the Room of Christ's surety, Righte­ousness, you have certainly miss'd your Mark, and must charge again if you design to do Execution. If you tho't I had taught that we are perfectly Righteous; that we are as Righteous as the Angels in Heaven; or what is worse still, that our Righ­teousness deserves to be compared with the Infinite Purity of the divine Nature, or finally that we can merit Heaven by it; If these were your Tho'ts, I say, you have mistaken the Man, and are fight­ing only with your own Shadow.

I challenge you, or any one, or all of your Attestators, to point out a single Passage in my Sermon where the Doctrine of Justification by the merit of Man's personal Righteousness is asserted, or from whence it can by good and necessary Consequence be inserred. All I contend for, the whole Point I have in View throughout my whole Discourse (I say again) is only to show that the Prophet did not design to brand the Vertues of real good Men with this odious Cha­racter of filthy Rags, but is speaking in the Text, of the Performances of quite a different set of People. So far am I from teaching any thing about the merit of them, that I say expressly, (Page 29th.) Forgiveness of Sin and final Ac­ceptance with the Father is thro' the Merits of the Son. And is there any thing contradictory and inconsistent in all this? Can there be no Degree of Purity in Men, and this Purity held not to be filthiness, without supposing personal Righteousness [Page 11] [...]

BUT all this will not do, you still insist upon it, that those Divine Vertues which constitute the Image of God, are in his sight no better than filthy Rags, and that it was the Design of the Prophet in particular, in the Passage under Consideration to represent them as such. But as saying and pro­ving [Page 12] differ as much as saying and doing, I will presume as was proposed, ( 2ly.) To Examine the several Arguments you use to support your opposite Sense of the Text, and point out to you the weakness and insufficiency of them to this Purpose.

You say you could easily make out what you advance relating to the Sense and Design of the Prophet in the Text, by Arguments drawn from the Context and other Parts of Isaiah's Prophecy. Strange to me! when 'twas so easy, you had not tryed what you could do this way; especially when you yourself say ( Pag. 3.) "Some in the Explication of this professed Rule (meaning the Bible) dont duly consider the Text and Context, the Scope and Design of the inspired Penman, to find the genuine meaning of the Passage under Consi­deration, &c." Pray Sir, how can you tell who the Prophet is here speaking of, and what Character he is drawing, unless you consider the whole run of his Discourse. You won't, I trust, pretend that by your inward Illumination you can certainly tell the meaning of an Author in any broken Sentence picked out of his Writings, with­out taking into Consideration other parts of his Discourse, upon which the right understanding of it essentially depends. Truly, Mr. Porter, your passing over the Context and other parts of this Book so slightily, when you were professedly sett­ling the Sense of a few dependant Words in it, and when this was the only possible way to cast a true Light upon your Subject, is not with me the most indubitable Evidence that you tho't the [Page 13] Consideration of these Things would serve your present turn.

BUT you say there is no need of this, since "the Text it self without going any further, fur­nishes you with Arguments sufficient for your purpose." It may be so. But you wont take it amiss if I presume to examine your Arguments a little before I believe it. Your

1st Argument is taken from the Word Righte­ousnesses. And what you say here may be thrown into this Form. If the Word Righteousness or Righteousnesses is never in Scripture used for the Hypocritical Performances of wicked Men, but to denote something truly good and excellent; then we may infer that the latter and not the former is intended in the Text—I acknowledge there would be something of an Argument here, if your Hypothesis could be maintained. But that it cannot is no hard Task to prove. The Case in short is so plain that I have been astonished (as well as many others) that your Supervisor, or some of your Reverend Attestators had not coun­celled you better, (as young Men I know need Advice) than to let such an Argument as this appear in Publick. What! is there no Place, from the Beginning of Genesis to the End of Revelation where the Term Righteousness is applied to the Hypocritical Performances of wicked Men? Strange you should not know better than this! Don't we read in this Book, of Men that trust to their own Righteousness; that go about to establish a Righteous­ness of their own; that turn away from their Righ­teousness; [Page 14] that only appear Righteous before Men? And Mr. Porter I hope don't think that they are truly Righteous who trust to and go about to estab­lish a Righteousness of their own—You can't be so Heritical as to think when a Man is truly Righ­teous, he can ever turn from it—You won't I am perswaded, when you think upon it, pretend to prove that one who only appears Righteous before Men, is really so in the sight of God. But not to multiply Instances, What think you ( good Sir) of the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees? Was it Hypocritical, or was it true and sincere? You can't affirm the latter, because Christ himself says, unless ours exceed it we shall in no Case enter into the Kingdom of God. Upon Supposition it was true and genuine, if our Righteousness equalled theirs, we might hope to see the Kingdom of God: So that this necessity of exceeding it, plainly de­monstrates some essential defect in it. Besides, it is evident from their whole History in the Gospel, that tho' they had a Righteousness, (such a one as it was) tho' they made a great shew of Devotion, and were infinitely nice and precise in their Way, yet that in common Life and Conversation they were Arrant Rogues and Hypocrites; that it was not only an Imputed Righteousness that they wanted, but a great deal more Personal Goodness than at present they were possessed of. It can't be tho't they were such perfect Moralists as some have represented them, when our Saviour himself says, they neglected the weightier Matters of the Law, such as Judgment, Mercy and Fidelity. They were indeed very famous for cutting up and tything their Herbs, and for a pretence made [Page 15] many and long Prayers: But at the same Time as infamous for devouring Widows Houses. In short, their whole Religion was turned into an Engine of Knavery—All their sanctified Grimace was only a plausible Covert for their spiritual Roguery. And it was undoubtedly upon this account that our Saviour thus disparages their Righteousness, and recommends a much better to his Followers. And why may'nt we suppose the Prophet Isaiah for the same Reason speaks of the Righteousness of their Predecessors ( who were very much like them) in the diminitive Language of our Text. Thus much besure may be fairly gathered from this Passage in our Saviour's Sermon, that there is at least one Place in Scripture where the Term Righteousness is applied to the Hypocri­tical Performances of wicked Men. And this alone (since you say there is none) is sufficient to overthrow your first Argument. And so let us go on to your second and see if that has any Thing more solid in it. This is taken from the Word All, in the Text. And for Substance (if I rightly understand you) may be fairly and fully express'd in this Form. If the Prophet speaks of all, i. e. of every individual in the Jewish Church, and there were some real good Men in it, then in this Character he must include their Righteousness: But the Term all is here to be understood in this unlimited Sense, &c.

HERE again I am afraid your Hypothesis will fail you, relating to the strict and literal univer­sality of the Term all. In the 1st Place ( Dear Sir) suffer me to query with you a little, how you [Page 16] come to fix such an unlimited Sense of the Term all in this Text, when you yourself will acknow­ledge, that in many other Places of holy Scripture 'tis so far from intending Universality, that it does not comprehend even the Majority, only a few particular Persons. Thus when we read of Christ's dying, of his giving his Life a Ransom for all, of his tasting of Death for every Man, (which Language is at least as universal as this in our Text) you know very well that all and every Man does not intend (according to the Letter) all and every Man: But must be con­strued agreable to the Analogy of Faith, as mean­ing only a few.

I know it will not follow from hence that it is to be taken so in this Place, in particular. But from the abovementioned Examples it appears, to you I hope at least, that it may be upon Occasion thus Restrained. And there is this further Con­sideration that will perhaps render it not only possible, but also pretty probable, that it was not (strictly speaking) a universal, but only a general Character the Prophet is here drawing; that this is perfectly agreable to the prophetick Stile, and many Instances of the same Nature may easily be produced from the Writings of these holy Men of old. Thus Moses discribing the Wickedness of the old World, says in Gen. 6. 12. ALL Flesh had corrupted his Way on Earth. But this Ac­count cannot strictly speaking comprehend all the Men that were then on the Earth, for there is at the same Time an express Exemption of Noah, who is said to be a Just Man, perfect in his Gene­ration, [Page 17] and one that walked with God. And therefore we read of his finding Grace in the Eyes of the Lord, and being with his House saved from the fatal Deluge. And so again; In the Prophet Jeremiah's Day on Earth, the Almighty challenges them to find so much as a Man that was truely good in Jerusalem. And yet we can't suppose they were all to a Man, Vicious and Ungodly; but that they were gener­ally so, and considered in a National View verily Guilty before God. But not to enlarge in so plain a Case; much to the same Purpose are those Words in the 14th Psalm 3d Ver. They are ALL gone aside, they are altogether become filthy, there is NONE that doeth good, no not ONE. Whatever Time of prevailing Corruption the sacred Writer here alludes to, no doubt there was then a Rem­nant according to the Election of Grace, that truly feared God. All therefore that can be intended in the Passage is, that Vice was Rampant and nearly Epidemical. And why might we not (if Mr. Porter had not forbid it) thus have un­derstood the Prophet in our Text? And what if we should after all, thus understand him, since there are so many particular Places in Scripture to countenance the Construction.

ONE thing further I will mention while I think of it; and that is, if it was every individual in the Jewish Church to whom the Prophet applies the Character in the Text, his Confession I humbly apprehend would not be very consistent in Mr. Porter's Sense of it. You suppose he is confes­sing the insufficiency of Man's best personal Righ­teousness [Page 18] to Justification. This I grant would found very well; it would be a great Expression of Humility and Self-Abasement as to the Godly Part of them, to acknowledge that after all their Virtuous Attainments, they could not stand Trial by the Law of perfect Obedience, but must have Recourse to the free unbo't Grace of God for Par­don and Acceptance. But pray, what propriety could there be in acknowledging that the Righ­teousness of the rest (which was by far the major Part) could not Justify them? It would be only to say, that those Things could not procure Justi­fication, which deserve the highest Damnation. Certain it is our Understanding the Prophet in this unlimited Sense necessarily runs us into a strange Mixture and Confusion of Characters, putting the most Vicious upon a Parr with the most Holy in Point of Acceptance with their Maker; whereas (Mr. Porter) I trust will allow that the latter (the Merit of their Goodness being entirely exclu­ded) have better Grounds to hope in God than the former, from the merciful Tenour of the Gos­pel. Tho' I know of some warm Folks that have preached it up as a fundamental Doctrine of Grace, that the most vicious Livers stand fairest for the special Grace of God. And when they design to give a Man the worst of Characters, to represent his Case as very Bad and Dangerous, they will call him a moral Man. This in their Esteem places him ten Degrees below a Heathen. But shall we continue in Sin that Grace may abound? The A­postle rejects this Antinomian notion with a most vehement GOD FORBID. But 'tis high Time that we proceed to say somthing to your [Page 19] 3d. And last Argument; which is taken from the Term our in the Text. And which as you humbly apprehend, and as your Attestators have settled the Point, must include the Prophet himself in the Character here drawn; And consequently the personal Righteousness of One real good Man at least is stiled filthy Rags. One Instance I ac­knowledge, especially of so good a Man as we all believe the Prophet Isaiah was, would be quite sufficient in this Case: And the Point must be given up without any more ado, if it did appear that he here styles his own personal Righteousness filthy Rags. The Charge moreover of abuse in chang­ing our into their would be very just. But pray Gentlemen, isn't it as rational (if you will allow Reason to have any Hand in settling the sense of Scripture) to suppose the Prophet is here Speaking in a publick Capacity; and that he was (as we commonly phraze it) the Peoples Mouth to God in this humble Confession?

IT will be granted I believe that there is such a Thing as National Guilt, and that when a Person in speaking in this Latitude, and as a publick Re­presentative of the rest in any humble Confession to Almighty God, then I say, he can't word him­self better than to say, Our Sin, and Our Guilt is so and so. And if a very righteous holy Minister should thus confess the Sins of this Land, or of old England at this Day, could any one rationally infer, that he designed to include himself, and was speaking of his own personal Guilt of every crying Abomination among them? I trow not. Indeed what is more common among some of [Page 20] the most Pious and Zealous of Christ's Ambassa­dors, when they are publickly confessing the Sins of this Land, to express themselves to this Purpose, O Lord, we acknowledge OUR greivous Apostacy from the Principles as well as Practices of our pious Forefathers, who for the Purity of Gospel Truth ventured their Lives into this then howling Wilderness—Now when such Gentlemen say OUR Apostacy from their Principles, &c. they would not I trust be understood to include them­selves as being personally guilty of departing from the Faith, which was then Imported. For this is the very Thing, even their Zeal for the Faith of the Fathers, that is the ground of their bitter Cry about the present decay of it. And no doubt the Prophet made this Confession in our Text, because he was grieved for Transgressors. In the fore­going Words he says, We are all as an unclean Thing, (or as some modestly express it, Sicut Pannus Mulieris Menstruatae) But is this the common Character of good Men in Scripture? Of many others vastly less holy than the Prophet 'tis said, Ye are washed, ye are sanctified. The Prophet must (unless you would confound all Characters) here personate the Jewish Chruch and People, and speak in their Names—Take an Instance or two parallel with this in our Text. In the preceeding Chapter 17th Verse, he makes this Confession,— Thou hast hardned our (mark OUR) Heart from thy Fear—The Question then is, if the Term Our in this Place includes the Prophet himself in common with the rest of that wicked People? If you say Yes; I say you fix the worst of Characters that is any were [Page 21] given of the most abandoned Men on Earth, on one of the best of Men then alive. If you say, Nay; then I beg to know what Reasons you can give why the Term Our should not be equally extensive in both these Passages.

Again,

IN the 59th Chap. 12th Verse, the Prophet introduces the abandoned Character of this People with that general Confession,—OUR Transgres­sions are multiplied—What these were he pre­sently enumerates, such as Lying, Oppression, Re­volt, uttering from the Heart Words of Falshood, &c. These the Prophet stiles our Transgressions; but surely you and all the World, must have a much better Opinion of this Heavenly good Man than to think he was such a Lying, Dishonest Fellow as he must be, if he is here included in the Term Our. Nor will it sound very well, to say, his Heart was hardned from the fear of God in point of Justification. But it must, I think, be quite plain to impartial Inquirers, that he calls these Villanies Our Transgressions in a National and not in a Personal Sense; and thus Confesseth them to God, as the Head and Representative of the Peo­ple. For 'tis worthy of our Observation, that in a few Words after he speaks of some, whose Names were not to be put into this black Cata­logue of Vices; (which yet he calls Our Trans­gressions) of some who departed from Evil, and thereby made themselves a Prey, i. e. become ex­posed to the Aspersions and Clamours of the afore­mentioned Sinners.

[Page 22]IT would be quite endless as well as needless to produce every Instance in the Sacred Writings, where the Person speaking uses the Term Our in drawing of Characters, that 'tis impossible shou'd be applicable to himself without confounding all Distinctions between Good and Evil, between the Saint and the Sinner. I will therefore only add, that for the same Reason the Prophet is here sup­posed to include himself in the Terms all and our, he must likewise be supposed to include himself in the following Character— There is none that calleth upon thy Name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee. The Text says NONE. But was not that Prophet a Man of Prayer? We must therefore understand the Term None, under the same Restriction in which we find it necessary to understand a thousand like forms of Speech, if we would make any Sense of Scripture.

THE Apology that is made for the Prophet, who was a very consistent Man, by a late Ver­bose, Dark, Jesuitical Writer, (whose Patience always holds out much longer than that of his Readers) will not be accepted any better than his Former, for a Person of a very different Character. For allowing (as we all must) that the Righte­ous are liable to "a sad Decay of Faith and Prayer," What is this to the present purpose? Was the Prophet Isaiah at this Time under any such De­cays? I trow not. He appears all along to be in the full exercise of both; confessing their Natio­nal Guilt; earnestly interceeding for this poor a­bandoned People, and Resolving that for Zions sake he would not hold his Peace, and for Jerusa­lems [Page 23] sake take no rest, 'till the Righteousness thereof went forth as Brightness, &c.—What more pa­thetick Prayer could the best Saint on Earth make, (and that in the highest Exercise of GRACE) than that in the 1st Verse of this 64th Chap. Oh that thou wouldest rent the Heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the Mountains might flow down at thy presence, &c. If I mistake not, there is here something like the actings of Grace in the Duty of Prayer, and something of a stiring up (in this holy Man) to take hold of God.

AFTER all, tho' we should grant that the Pro­phet includes himself in all these Characters; we have this Refuge still in Reserve; that what he says is to be confined to the Place where he De­livered it; and the Doctrines of Palestine are no more to be receiv'd by us here, (tho' Delivered by the Inspiration of God) than Oaths taken in Old England, are to be kept in America.—

BUT to return; (Mr. Porter) I have given your several Arguments a Distinct and Impartial Consideration. And if there is any Thing of Weight in what has been observed, let it have its Effect; If not, let it receive its just Contempt.

I have only to add,

3dly. THAT so far as you have any Controversy with me, you equally Oppose Calvin himself. And upon the Truth of this you will allow me the Liberty to expostulate a little with yourself, and Reverend Attestators, as to the Cry you have raised from the Abuse of the Text, about the Growth of Arminianism amongst us.

[Page 24]IT will take up too much Room to recite all that CALVIN says in his Commentary on this Text. I will therefore only turn you to one or two short Sentences full to the present Point—To prevent all Disquietudes in pious Minds from this seem­ing Disparagement of true Righteousness, he says, Hic se nonnulli torquent quod Propheta de scele­rum inquinamentis loquens sine exceptione Judoeos omnes exprimat, in quibus tamen restabant puri Dei cultores; sed frustra. Quia non loquitur de fingulis, sed de universo corpore,—In English thus— Here, there be some that Torment themselves because the Prophet speaking of the defilement of Sin takes in and represents the Case of all the Jews without exception, amongst whom there nevertheless remained some pure Worshipers of God; but in vain and without cause (i. e. they are disquieted in vain upon the Account of the Prophet's expressing him­self so universally) because he does not here Speak of every Individual, but of the whole Body, or considered as a Society and Community of Men.—Presently after he opens more fully still; Says he— Hic Locus citari a quibusdam solet ut probent adeo nihil esse meriti in Operibus nostris, ut coram Deo putidoe & foetidoe sint. Sed hoc mihi videtur alienum a Prophetoe sententia, &c. &c. As if he had said; This Place (meaning the 64th. Isaiah 6th.) is wont to be cited by some, that they may prove there is so far from being any thing good and valuable in our Works, that they are in God's Sight noisome and filthy Things. But this appears to me to be very foreign from the Sense of the Prophet, &c.—Thus speaketh Mr. Calvin. And if these (Mr. Porter,) were Calvin's Senti­ments [Page 25] with Respect to the Text under Conside­ration, might not both you and your Attestators very lawfully have spared your Cries and Groanes about the Abuse of it. Nay, Sir, how could you with any face upon Calvinistick Principles disclaim Calvin's own Interpretation of the Words? If I have done him Justice in these Quotations, I have certainly in settling the Sense of the Text (which is all the present Controversy) been quite Calvi­nistical; unless you will suppose that Calvin him­self was not a Calvinist. Surely you had much more Reason to have Charged me with Stealing my Interpretation from Calvin than in the least contradicting of him. How shall we account for this enormous Blunder in you? I have had vari­ous Conjectures in my own Mind about the Mat­ter. Sometimes I have Charitably hoped that you were not acquainted with Calvin's Writings; that you had never Consulted him upon the Text, but took for grant that he understood all Scripture just in the same Sense in which his professed Follow­ers now do. And then again (to be honest with you) I confess I have not sometimes been with­out my Doubts whether or no the Language in which Calvin wrote might not a little startle you. There being some in all Ages, like those in Dr. South's, whom he says, always looked upon Latin to be the Language of the Beast.

SIR, what your Sentiments are in this Respect or the Grounds of your thus turning an Opposer of Calvin, I pretend not to determine. Your Excuse perhaps may be, I wot not what I did. If so, I shall Rejoice for your Sake. But however, whe­ther, [Page 26] Ignorance or Design was at the Bottom of it (I hope the former,) certain it is that 'tis matter of Lamentation, and shall be for a Lamentation, that the good old Calvinistical way of opening Texts is so little Regarded by his professed Disciples. Alas! Alas! that one of his youngest Children should rise up at this Day against him, and find so many elder Brethren to Countenance, Attest, and Support this his Disobedience and Rebellion against him; that the Cause of good old Mr. Calvin should be so wounded in the House of so many of his best Friends.

AFTER all that I have here very openly (and I trust very honestly) observed relating to Calvinism, I beg both you and your Attestators to spare me a Word relating to the Cry you have raised about the Growth of Arminianism amongst us. How far this is true, you are (or ought to be) the best Judges, who have publickly Asserted it. But to fix this Character on any Man, only from his In­terpretation of one single Text, and which at the same Time he proves to be Calvinistical, is I think, as Injurious to him as 'tis inconsistent with your­selves. Gentlemen, you know very well that many Sounds operate like a Charm on many Minds. "They confound their Judgment, they inflame their Passions." And this can't by any sober Men be judged the best Method to make them either sound Believers or good Livers. What Wonders have the Terms, Infidel, Papist, Arminian, &c. wro't on Vulgar Minds, when artfully played a­gainst an Antagonist? How often has Truth been suppressed and Nonsense established only by the [Page 27] Magick of Sounds? It never did nor never will answer any good End in the propagation of Truth, to load our Opposers with Terms of Reproach, and to endeavour by calling them hard Names to lessen their Reputation and Usefulness, under a blind Notion of their being Hereticks. Errors when Apparent ought undoubtedly to be Opposed by all that are set for the defence of the Gospel; But then how is this to be managed? Surely not by fixing the Populace with blind Prejudices against them; but by endeavouring a solid Confutation of these Heresies by bringing Rational and Scriptural Arguments against them. But if instead of this, Men think to carry their Cause merely by the Ap­plication of a few odious [...].

As we are all agreed in the divine Right of private Judgment, so ought we to exercise all possible Caution least we enslave our own Minds or the Minds of our People to any humane Schemes and Authorities; for to teach them to substitute the Writings of weak fallible Man, in the Room [Page 28] of Christ and his Gospel, may perhaps in the End turn out as fatal as substituting our personal in the Room of Christ's surety Righteousness.

But 'tis Time to have done; having already vastly exceeded the length I at first proposed in this Letter—Mr. Porter, I have stated (as well as I could) the Point in Controversy. I have particularly considered your Arguments and endea­voured to Point out the weakness of them. I have entred and prosecuted my Complaint against you and your Attestators, for raising a Cry about the Growth of Arminianism, when I have proved my self entirely Calvinistical in my Sense of this Text; which as I observed before, is the whole of the present Controversy. As for your after-Discourse about the Merit of our Goodness or Righteousness, I say again, what I intimated be­fore, that I never tho't, believed or preached any Thing of this, but always the direct contrary Doc­trine. And if you bring the Charge I shall expect you Support it with good Arguments; if not with good Attestators.

WHATEVER your Apprehensions or the Sen­timents of others may be relating to the Doctrine of Merit, Justification, &c. I assure you, I always preach up (what I firmly believe) that the Grace of God is the Original Spring of all his Creatures Happiness, and that there is no such Thing as Buying, Purchasing or Meriting this Grace at his Hands. But that 'tis Free and Rich Grace. By Free I mean, 'tis the Essential Disposition of the Deity to be good. By Rich I mean, the same [Page 29] with the Sacred Writer; that he is good to All, and that his tender Mercies are over All his Works. I tell my People indeed, that they must do all those things that are commanded in the Gospel; which is the Law of Life to us. But am careful at the same time to add—that when they have done all they are to look for Eternal Life as the GIFT of GOD, thro' Jesus Christ.

SUFFER me now to Conclude all with a few short Extracts from the Writings of a precious Minister of Jesus Christ, now with the Lord. ‘Some Men ( says he) seem to be so afraid of the Merit of Obedience and good Works, that they loath to Assert the Necessity of them, and do it with so much Caution as if they were not tho'roly perswaded of it, or did apprehend some dangerous Consequence from it. But this Fear is perfectly groundless; as if Merit could not be excluded, without casting off our Duty, and reclaiming our selves from any necessary Obli­gations to be good.’—

In another Place he says;

‘I have been more careful to express these Things (i. e. such as Relate to Grace, Faith and personal Obedience) more fully and dis­tinctly, that no Man may imagine, that whilst we assert the necessity of Obedience and a holy Life we have any design in the least to dero­gate from the Faith and Grace of God, but only to engage and encourage Men to Holiness and a good Life, by convincing them of the absolute indispensible Necessity of it, in order to Eternal Salvation. For all that I have said is [Page 30] in plain English no more than this, that its ne­cessary for a Man to be a good Man that he may get to Heaven. And whoever finds fault with this Doctrine, finds fault with the Gospel it self, and the main End and Design of the Grace of God therein revealed to Mankind, which offers Salvation upon no other Terms—And to preach and press this Doctrine is cer­tainly, if any thing in the World can be so, to pursue the great End and Design of the Christian Religion’—

In another Place he says;

‘I know it hath been the great End and Design of the Devil and his Instruments in all Ages to undermine Religion, by making an unhappy Separation and Divorce between Godlines and Morality, between Faith, and the Virtues; of a good Life, and by this means not only to weaken and abase, but even wholly to destroy the Force and Efficacy of the Christian Religion, and to leave Men as much under the Power of the Devil and their Lust, as if there was no such thing as Christianity in the World. But let us not deceive ourselves; this always was Reli­gion, and the Condition of our Acceptance with God, to endeavour to be like God in Purity and Holiness, in Justice and Righteousness, in Mercy and Goodness, to cease to do evil, and to learn to do well’—

In another Place he says;

‘There are many Persons in the World very Sollicitous about an Orthodox Belief, and mightily concerned to know what the Scriptures, but especially what the Councils and Fathers have [Page 31] declared in such a Matter; and they are nice and scrupulous in these Things even to the ut­most Punctilio's, and will with a most unchris­tian Passion contend for the Christian Faith’—

But as he observes in another Place still;

‘When all is done and said, there is no such Error and Heresy, nothing so fundamentally Opposite to Religion as a Wicked Life.’

Thus he.

Dear Sir, I presume not to Subscribe my self (according to Old Style) your Brother in the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel; for fear you should imagine I have not Faith eno' for any Fellowship. But you will allow me, I trust, the Privilege of a Heathen, (if found and serious) to declare, that,